CompuServe Thread

Because most pirated versions don't really work that well. And the soundness of NewTeks thinking or lack thereof is also n ot avalid justification to break the law. One LW purchased per CPU on which it resides at any given time. Take lightwave off the host machine and run it on a LightRave equipped machine is legal. TO have it on a Toaster equipped machine AND a lightrave machine while having purchased only one license is illegal. Plain and simple, no if ands or butts and no legitimate rational exists to break the law. That is the intent of the authors, kyou knew about it whsn you bought the license for th product, and your paying for that license is your aggreement to abide by it. Failure to do so means that you are a theif as sure as going to the local Toaster dealer and shoplifting a Toaster out the door. No amount of rationalization can change that even if it does allow you to delude yourself enough to avoid some of the pangs of guilt that ought to go with sucn an act. wmc – via Autopilot!

WAYNE!!! Obviously you have gotten in late on this discussion or you are in need of a serious attitude adjustment. Hopefully it's the former not the latter <g>. This is a spirited thread and I think you sucessfully got my goat by implying that I am a thief, so excuse me while I break out the torch. I DO NOT nor have I EVER implied that it's ok to steal software. I have been stating a case for Newtek to do SITE LICENSING!!! Go back and read my previous postings and I think you will begin to understand why I FLAME ON when somebody thinks I am promoting piracy. I PLAY BY THE RULES!! I OWN TWO REGISTERED VERSIONS OF LIGHTWAVE ON TWO SEPERATE TOASTER SYSTEMS!!!!! That doesn't mean that I can't see the value of the site licensing concept. I would like you to consider putting aside your guilt trip for just a wee moment and open up your mind to some important logic Perhaps others (perhaps not you specifically) should stop living in a fantasy world where they honestly think everyone OBEYS the license agreement simply because it's printed on the envelope that the software comes in. Even though I do, as well as many others who use their software in professional applications, it's not too much of a stretch to see that Newtek is missing out on some very important income oppourtunities when it's more affordable to pirate (ala LightRave) than it is to register. Not to mention the overall BAD PR it promotes to take a punitive approach to this situation, when it would be so much easier (and more profitable) to learn the lessons that other more mature software companies have. When you site license, you defeat over 90% of casual piracy (the majority source of lost sales). Those people who are bent on not paying for something for whatever reason will ALWAYS find a way to steal. Direct your punitive actions toward those that are truly dishonest. The people who are buying LightRave are people who have demonstrated the ability and the DESIRE to PAY FOR PRODUCT! That's as strong an incentive for the site license concept if there ever was one. Beyond the initial cost of product development, there are horrendous costs associated with support of your existing your customer base. Site licenses make a lot of financial sense. for the following reasons; For Newtek to issue site licenses for multiple non-Toaster Amigas where there is at least one Toaster installed unit, there would be very little if any marketing costs (which accounts for at least 30% of their product expenses). Zero expense for documentation. Minimal technical support for ongoing customers who have already passed the learing curve. Immediate cash flow from willing and eager customers who already own and like your product. And as a nice side benefit, it diffuses the illegal infringement on their intellectual property by undercutting companies like Warm & Fuzzy that have obviously seen a hole in the marketplace and seek to fill it. It also does little to inhibit new sales of Toasters, on the contrary ; It promotes the perception to the professional user that they are dealing with a sucessful ongoing concern that is in step with the majority of sofytware companies that they deal with all the time. NOT A PETTY, ANAL RETENTIVE ALAGARCHY! So all I ask at this point is WHERE'S THE DOWNSIDE FOR NEWTEK IN SITE LICENSING? In short Wayne.. I am NOT trying to rationalize software piracy. I am putting forth a suggestion for a reasonable approach to a serious situation that needs to be addressed. Forgive me for saying, but your comments to Rick, Jerry, and myself are akin to the head-in-the-sand ostrich attitudes that sunk more than a few technology companies that failed to use the same innovation in their management policies that was used in developing their products. I appreciate your chiming [continued in the reply]

WAYNE!!! Obviously you have gotten in late on this discussion or you are in need of a serious attitude adjustment. Hopefully it's the former not the latter <g>. This is a spirited thread and I think you sucessfully got my goat by implying that I am a thief, so excuse me while I break out the torch. I DO NOT nor have I EVER implied that it's ok to steal software. I have been stating a case for Newtek to do SITE LICENSING!!! Go back and read my previous postings and I think you will begin to understand why I FLAME ON when somebody thinks I am promoting piracy. I PLAY BY THE RULES!! I OWN TWO REGISTERED VERSIONS OF LIGHTWAVE ON TWO SEPERATE TOASTER SYSTEMS!!!!! That doesn't mean that I can't see the value of the site licensing concept. I would like you to consider putting aside your guilt trip for just a wee moment and open up your mind to some important logic Perhaps others (perhaps not you specifically) should stop living in a fantasy world where they honestly think everyone OBEYS the license agreement simply because it's printed on the envelope that the software comes in. Even though I do, as well as many others who use their software in professional applications, it's not too much of a stretch to see that Newtek is missing out on some very important income oppourtunities when it's more affordable to pirate (ala LightRave) than it is to register. Not to mention the overall BAD PR it promotes to take a punitive approach to this situation, when it would be so much easier (and more profitable) to learn the lessons that other more mature software companies have. When you site license, you defeat over 90% of casual piracy (the majority source of lost sales). Those people who are bent on not paying for something for whatever reason will ALWAYS find a way to steal. Direct your punitive actions toward those that are truly dishonest. The people who are buying LightRave are people who have demonstrated the ability and the DESIRE to PAY FOR PRODUCT! That's as strong an incentive for the site license concept if there ever was one. Beyond the initial cost of product development, there are horrendous costs associated with support of your existing your customer base. Site licenses make a lot of financial sense. for the following reasons; For Newtek to issue site licenses for multiple non-Toaster Amigas where there is at least one Toaster installed unit, there would be very little if any marketing costs (which accounts for at least 30% of their product expenses). Zero expense for documentation. Minimal technical support for ongoing customers who have already passed the learing curve. Immediate cash flow from willing and eager customers who already own and like your product. And as a nice side benefit, it diffuses the illegal infringement on their intellectual property by undercutting companies like Warm & Fuzzy that have obviously seen a hole in the marketplace and seek to fill it. It also does little to inhibit new sales of Toasters, on the contrary ; It promotes the perception to the professional user that they are dealing with a sucessful ongoing concern that is in step with the majority of sofytware companies that they deal with all the time. NOT A PETTY, ANAL RETENTIVE ALAGARCHY! So all I ask at this point is WHERE'S THE DOWNSIDE FOR NEWTEK IN SITE LICENSING? In short Wayne.. I am NOT trying to rationalize software piracy. I am putting forth a suggestion for a reasonable approach to a serious situation that needs to be addressed. Forgive me for saying, but your comments to Rick, Jerry, and myself are akin to the head-in-the-sand ostrich attitudes that sunk more than a few technology companies that failed to use the same innovation in their management policies that was used in developing their products. I appreciate your chiming [continued in the reply]

Kent, << OTOH, if 3.1 IS an entitlement, perhaps we could set up government mandated Toaster Management Organizations (TMOs), taxpayer funded to ensure universal Toaster coverage for the Toasterly challenged, thus bringing us a step closer to egalitarian utopia. <g> >> If you've ever seen _any_ of my politically related comments, you know that the scenario you described is the LAST thing I'd want! <VBG> Jerry

Rick, First, yes, I did get the mags, and MANY THANKS!! I too spent about 2 years of my life developing and marketing a computer program, and agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that way too much is stolen! On the LightWave/LightRave thing: I wish Newtek would just get off their duffs and release a version that would allow me to buy 2 or 3 A2000's, load 'em up just for rendering, and shave eons off the time it takes me to complete a project… Jerry

Wayne, I have no idea why you're blasting me. Did you read my post AT ALL ?? I did not justify or rationalize anything in any way. I did comment on Newtek's 'missing the boat'; they are, IMO. BTW, I'm not 'allegedly' running one copy of LW on one CPU; I *am* running only one copy of LW on _anything_. Jerry

Just outta curiosity, for those of us that could probably come up with enough cash for a one CPU solution system, how much faster would renders be over a 25MHz 040? I too invision a local dial-up render service (might even like to run my own) not to mention know of several others that would participate. Thanks, Dan Daniel J. McCoy // CIS – 73742,3072 AP Engaged! \X/ Render 'till ya drop!